Friday, June 17, 2016

At 7:30 PM Eastern time on Friday, June 17th, I will be debating Free Trade with Austrian economist Robert Murphy. Another notable figure of the Austrian School, Thomas Woods, will moderate the debate concerning the following resolution:

RESOLVED: Free trade is always economically beneficial in the long term,
and the more free trade is practiced by a country, the higher the
standard of living of its inhabitants will be.

Please don't bother telling me what you think I should or should not do. You are not debating the subject. I am. The purpose of this post is not to gather new ideas or information. Moreover, it is not fair to the other participant to have multiple parties ganging up on him. Any suggestions or advice concerning free trade will be deleted.

Congrats on the creation of an actual, proper debate - a question, a time format for each side, audience questions, summing up, etc. Should be interesting to hear as a podcast or read as a transcript if that is possible.

Refreshing after all the years of the lugenpresse gotcha's with politicians that are mislabeled 'debate'.

@2 U.S. Has a lot of problems owing to different causes. Yes free trade contributed to it but since there are so many things going wrong at once you can't necessarily pin down a free trader and point to that as the sole cause.

Isn't the "Contra Cruise" an example of off-shoring, and will you be throwing and effigy of Paul Krugman overboard.

You can order live chicks via the mail today, so would "mail-order brides" be regulated at all under "free trade"? I'm thinking the more common example and as an alternative to Divorce when you get tired of putting up with the missus.

My interest in economic theories is far below that of the intestinal flora of some insects, however, my compliments on the format. It is very refreshing to see a decent structure for rational conversation.

I'm not an economist by any means, but I can't believe anyone thinks free trade is good for a developed country. Free trade obviously sucks your standard of living down as it drives up the standard of living in undeveloped countries. It has the effect of leveling the playing field. If you remember, that was one of the selling points when NAFTA was being debated.

Literally look at what literally Hitler did in literally Germany before WW2 and get back to us. Or look at the fastest growth phase of the US economy ever (post Civil war) and consider that the government was financed with tariffs, we were on a gold standard and immigration was nearly zero.

I'm not saying that the restrictionist position is obvious. It isn't to me, for sure. But smart people have to concede that it's more complicated than the libertarian bedtime stories we all grew up on.

Reading Murphy's bio and summaries of his books at Amazon, it is clear he is a Kool-Aid imbibing true believer. He will be in for the same shock that Miller was, and as equally unprepared. It's going to be brutal.

As Mike Tyson said: "Everyone has an air-tight theoretical defense of free trade, until they get hit by Vox Day."

Indeed, we've all had enough of Tiny Tim talking about. Getting his hair done, rhapsodizing about sweaty, half-naked Salvadoran gang bangers working on his ranch/oil refinery/shooting range and claiming everyone laughing at him are the real gays... to last a couple thousand lifetimes. Tiny Tim might scare Milo straight.

"Please don't bother telling me what you think I should or should not do. You are not debating the subject. I am. The purpose of this post is not to gather new ideas or information. Moreover, it is not fair to the other participant to have multiple parties ganging up on him. Any suggestions or advice concerning free trade will be deleted."You were being way too polite saying that.I would have said if you no likee, fuck off and shut up.But, that's me.

"I can't sign up because I only have one name. And what about my friends Madonna, Sting, Bono, Charo and Cher?"THEY CAN'T SIGN UP EITHER. I'd rather hear your opine than those turds anyhoo. Not saying I want to hear yours,dig ?( I kid, for I am a kidder.)

Should the proposition carry or have an inconclusive resolution, some future questions it would be interesting to discover what the current Austrian School thinking on would be:

Considering the Austrian School does acknowledge the validity of making economic policy for non-economic reasons, an example given in _Human Action_ is protecting a local industry of military importance, and that regardless of long term benefit, it must be admitted that unrestricted free trade at least has short term harms, under what conditions is it sound policy to restrict trade for non-economic reasons? (Social policy, political stability, reducing unemployment, etc.)

Even if free trade is proven to be positive on a long enough time scale, is it morally required to accept unlimited short term pain to achieve it? How can the sort of popular governments conducive to free economies be maintained in the face of the popular unrest caused by the economic dislocations related to unrestricted free trade?

But if ya go ahead and crush em on the basic premise that is good too.

VD, what is a best case scenario for you and your arguments, and what does a worst case scenario look like?

In the past, when I have witnessed relatively expert people debate a complex topic, the course tends to test the boundaries of definitions, assumptions, etc. For viewers, it can be unfulfilling.

The other clear pattern I have seen is that both parties have a stronghold that is pretty well thought out, and there isn't much movement on either party into unfamiliar territory. Do you think this is a possible outcome?

I've come around on the merits of protectionism. My sense is that some modest tariffs might slightly negatively impact our total GDP, but the wealth would be distributed more towards the middle class rather than the investor class and the welfare class. It would boost the national work ethic and decrease the corrosive freeloader tendencies of the welfare class.

My biggest concern about tariffs is the corruption angle. If you allow a benevolent government to dictate which sectors of the economy deserve tariff protection and which ones do not, it will surely inspire bribery and corruptions as special interests lobby government. There would need to be a way to objectively evaluate the economy and determine where tariffs would have the most beneficial net effect. Either that, or make tariffs across-the-board, at least for finished products of any kind. You can't pick and choose specific sectors.

Vox, here is a news story you might want to help spread. A new muslim rape gang uncovered in England:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092

This story has gone under the radar and can only be found as a local Leeds story.

A new muslim child rape gang had been uncovered the day before that open borders politician was murdered. The gang was operating in the same area she and the killer lived. The media has not made the connection, or are not reporting it, but it is possible he knew a victim and blamed her for pushing for rapists to enter England. This would explain why the media has been so silent about the man's motives. If word of another muslim rape gang became national news right before the Brexit vote it would be a done deal.

Great Again wrote:I've come around on the merits of protectionism. My sense is that some modest tariffs might slightly negatively impact our total GDP, but the wealth would be distributed more towards the middle class rather than the investor class and the welfare class. It would boost the national work ethic and decrease the corrosive freeloader tendencies of the welfare class.That does seem to be the metric of choice for free traders, right? Of course it is; because it's almost the only one that consistently gives them the results that they want to see. They rarely explain how it makes much difference to regular middle-class working folks, or even attempt to imply that it really does.

Two words: Arge 'n Tina.Two more words (for the French): Ven et Zuela.Restrict voluntary exchange, encourage poverty. Competition is the friend of the poor and the bane of monopolists, state or otherwise.

Suppose we have two neighboring landowners, call them China and 'Murica. Let us assume they have other neighbors who, by contract, they may call upon for either defense or enforcement of agreements, but which otherwise don't matter to this thought experiment. Let us further assume China has a lot of gemstones on his land, and 'Murica doesn't. Let us assume that 'Murica has large agricultural production capacity in comparison with China. Let us assume both start with a fixed supply of gold.

Let us assume China sells 'Murica gemstones at a profit. The gemstones are easily acquired by China, and are priced highly compared to the produce received, such that there becomes, over time, a trade imbalance between China and 'Murica - China has profited in exchanges with 'Murica, and 'Murica has not, as measured in gold. In light of 'Murica's decreasing capacity to pay China for his gemstones, China buys productive land from 'Murica and rents it out to 'Murica in exchange for produce rasied thereon (and the gold China just bought the land with). Through this process over time, China owns all of 'Murica's land and all the gold. 'Murica has been reduced to peonage, and voluntarily so.

Legislation to impose tarrifs should be simultaneously associated with legistion to reduce taxes (regulations, etc.) on any company that builds or expands manufacturing (and not just assembly of foreign parts) in the US. The two pieces of legislation should be linked such that one is not signed without the other.

Give credit where’s it’s due. Muslim men have balls and will not surrender to Zionist Wall-Street-Hollywood-Las-Vegas-funded globalist POO-RIDE Degeneracy.

In contrast, Western men have done NOTHING but surrender being brainwashed by Jews & Homos and allowing their cities(and even churches) to be turned into Sodom & Gomorrahs that celebrate fecal penetration of homo men and genital mutilation of trannies.

Go Turks!!!! Proud Turks will NOT allow their sacred fatherland be defiled by Zionist-Homo-promoted neo-imperialist degeneracy.

Free trade as currently practiced by our lords and betters will eventually result in me shitting the oligarchs and their defenders into a six foot deep hole*. I will be picking the flecks of flesh out from my filed-sharpened teeth with their cracked bones.

*Thank you David the Good, I will use it as fertilizer for the hundreds of heirloom fruit and nut tree saplings that will be planted for my kids so they have wholesome food to eat after the tinned stores run out. Better I develop the long-pig prion disease then them.

@87-Sounds like you are ready for the zombie apocalypse.Me, I plan on putting on body armor and a spiked helmet before I inject myself with the virus... and I am in great cardio shape for catching the vegans.

I used to be a MI member. I ended up terminating my membership because while I found myself agreeing with many of the positions espoused in the articles and books, they seemed to always ignore a few things that bothered me:

1) Not all humans on the planet are 1-2SD above norm IQ, European-descended, middle-class people who basically just want to be peacefully left alone.

2) People are not equal.

3) There is no world consensus on Western values and morals, let alone economic practices.

4) Sin/Vice does not seem to factor into their thought experiments concerning a completely non-government society. This is do to the school not supporting any particular religion even though they operate from a Christian modality.

5) Human well-being is not solely predicated on material wealth.

6) Culture, Religion, genetics, and psychological well-being are discounted factors in their discussions.

That last one is why so many of the Austrian School come off as Aspie. The school's focus on logic rather than mathematical models is admirable, but when they discount the human element and reduce people to just homo economis, those who travel and hang out with different groups of people rather than just one or two social groups quickly see a problem. Focusing on the money isn't a good idea when your country and culture are collapsing.

Anyway, good job Vox. I didn't come away with an impression that either of you won the debate. It felt like an appetizer to a bigger debate. Hope your and Murray can agree to do some more episodes on his podcast.

And don't beat yourself on your presentation. The more you do these talked debates rather than written ones, the better you'll get.

Vox I get your point, however how would you justify giving government more power since you yourself have pointed out how most of the political elites have betrayed their own people and have become in most cases agents of the corporate elites and their interests disregarding any ties to their "lesser brethren"?

Eat all the whacko Vegans you want. I've only met ONE who was normal and he grows mushrooms and some weird algae that gives him ALL his nutrients as well as the most diverse garden of veggies, fruits and nuts I've ever seen. Hard-core but wise and understood it wasn't for everyone.

The normal ovo-lacto-vegetarians I met all ate meat from their chickens, sheep and goats once they were too old to produce. Or gave it to neighbors. They lived by the philosophy "make sure they only have one bad day".

@60-Allow me. Have you ever been in a community afflicted by the virus of 'the company store'? or one where the local populace does not have the power or technology to oppose corporate interests, such as in African diamond country?this is not an isolated event, this is the standard operating procedure for 'free trade'. When companies grow large enough, and are not opposed by a government or ruler, all interest in treating humans like humans evaporates, ESPECIALLY when transportation is easy like it is today.When you can divorce your workforce from your consumers, it makes good business sense to enslave your workforce, destroy their local environment, poison their water supply, etc... after all, with distance, sins become irrelevant.Look at chemotherapy chemical companies if you want to see the egregious abuse companies are willing to commit if 'the bottom line' supports it.

Why do free traders alays trot this out. It doesn't even make sense. The elites are already arrogating themselves more power. The government already picks winners and losers on a domestic basis. Violating Free Trade merely means extending the benefits of the elite leadership so that foreigners as well as locals can benefit from their wise guidance.

@99. Snidely Whiplash:'however how would you justify giving government more power'"Why do free traders alays [sic] trot this out. It doesn't even make sense. The elites are already arrogating themselves more power. The government already picks winners and losers on a domestic basis. Violating Free Trade merely means extending the benefits of the elite leadership so that foreigners as well as locals can benefit from their wise guidance."

Trade itself is what makes modern civilization possible. People specialize and exchange the surpluses generated thereby.

There's a logical case that one ought not deny foreigners this opportunity because in doing so you hinder the commonwealth of your own people.

But! It's a big leap from there to "free" trade, to pretending anything in this world is free (and irony of ironies, from libertarians who laugh uproariously at similar constructions like "free education"), or that any benefit a person or society can derive may be had without concomitant cost.

Hard nosed practical people suddenly become fantasists, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the friedmanites and their duplicitous rationalisations for corporate irresponsibility, have not infected the otherwise usually clear sighted Austrians.

I'm only picking on you because I think you can handle it. Man up, don't cave, bro. These other pussies are so dispiriting. I always thought it was my size, but online I have no size. What the hell is it?

@residentMoron:

I'm having problems with this handle. You're not really a moron, but the name...

I hadn't realized this was your house. And you accuse me of equivocation! Huh.

You do, in spite of that, make a fair point. But the argument of the free traders is that an import duty is a tax, a labelling regulation is a tax, a quality standard is a tax.

The founders of the USA considered government enforcement of contract a necessary condition for the high trust society they designed to build, and so they considered tariffs a necessary evil to fund the operation of government. Securing the border means anyone who seeks to profit by crossing it must pay a fee for that security.

That's different from both the punitive protectionism of the past and the free traders "free" idealism.

all you REALLY have to point out is that Free Trade is part of the Marxist Communist plan to destroy the Aristocracy and elevate the Bourgeois class. and this has been the Communists plan since 1848.

why do the Communists want to elevate the Bourgeois class?

because, according to the Marxist "Inevitable Forces of History", immediately upon the Bourgeois displacing the Aristocracy and seizing the reins of power, the war between the Proletariat and Bourgeois begins.

and the Marxist Communist desires the war against the Bourgeois to begin as soon as possible.

Free Trade is not AND NEVER HAS BEEN an ideal of the 'Right', it has been a weapon advanced by Marxist Communists to destroy the Aristocracy since ~1850 ( Lincoln was a protectionist for his entire term in the presidency in the 1860s ). if this weapon should also be useful against the Bourgeois, they certainly won't lay it down after the Aristocracy has been disposed of.

so the only real necessary answer to (((Levin))) is that his advocacy of Free Trade proves that he is a stalking horse for Communist Ideals.

when he complains that the accusation is Rhetoric, cite the relevant passages the Manifesto and tell him to prove that your statement is not Dialectic.

i think that's what drives people nuts about me.

i make seemingly outrageous statements ( like "there's a bunch of pedophiles in charge of the GOP" ) and everybody assumes i'm using Rhetoric because what i'm saying is so crazy.

The elites are already arrogating themselves more power. The government already picks winners and losers on a domestic basis. Violating Free Trade merely means extending the benefits of the elite leadership so that foreigners as well as locals can benefit from their wise guidance.

I don't think I would be called a good libertarian at least according to your standards since I think free trade of goods is possible under ideal circumstances and free movement of peoples is just madness given human nature. My point is along the lines of Hans Hermann Hoppe and his opposition to immigration and how in a real small government environment, this wouldn't be an issue since people themselves would decide if someone gets citizenship, in the case of Arizona for you Americans, the State or the very counties near the border would be the ones in charge of immigration policy not Washington so if "Arizonians" or whatever county is the policy unit responsible decide to destroy yourselves and accept hordes of Mexicans so be it, but for example Colorado would be able to reject your idiocy and the idiots you just let in, so far such a system used to work well in Switzerland until the women suffrage.

My point is that Free trade of goods is beneficial...when both parts engage in it freely and with the utmost transparency and honesty...hence it's possible that due to the human nature real free trade of only goods is impossible, only limited trade.

dB wrote:Question: was there a debate winner? i only caught the last 20mins or so but i was curious if there was a consensus on performance.

Durandel @89 summed it up nicely: "Anyway, good job Vox. I didn't come away with an impression that either of you won the debate. It felt like an appetizer to a bigger debate. Hope your and Murray can agree to do some more episodes on his podcast."

when both parts engage in it freely and with the utmost transparency and honesty...hence it's possible that due to the human nature real free trade of only goods is impossible, only limited trade.

So, only between hominem economicae, and not any actual humans known to exist. Fair enough.

It's not dogma. Very few nations if any have the same capability to produce or manufacture all past, present and future inanimate things needed to run a society, either in the past, present or future. When trade wasn't option and scientific/engineering breakthroughs weren't there, war was a viable and welcome path in order to acquire resources and capabilities you didn't have and couldn't/wouldn't by (lands, milk, wood, iron, gold, silver, diamonds, rare earth minerals, women...).

1337kestrel wrote:If free trade is good, by definition, when both parties agree to it, because they wouldn't agree to it if it didn't benefit them both...

How does that apply to a situation where we are trying to stop it because it doesn't benefit us? By that definition isn't trade bad?

If trade is not beneficial any longer the party should be able to just cut it off and that's it. That is how it should work if the parties operated with utmost transparency and honesty .

However I think history has shown that's not possible due to the human nature. Moreover what China and other nations in the East practice is not free trade is mercantilism, war and politics by other means, they are not honest and transparent. They are not even looking at increasing the wealth of their populations, they are looking to weaken and or destroy the productive capabilities of their partners while preserving theirs, even at the expense of their own country (China pollution problem). A nation that trades with them and whose elite doesn't act accordingly in base of the reality is either made up of utopian imbeciles that don't dwell in the real world (aka cuckservatives in modern American jargon) or traitors. Choose your pick.

@118. J.M.:J.M., you're too wordy, though I appreciate your efforts. These guys are so easy to demolish, it's just boring.

Division of labor is so efficient that the biggest problem the poor have today is obesity and their greatest health risks are obesity-related (diabetes, heart disease, being fat disgusting fucks with triple-chins and man-boobs). The only way to obtain the benefits of specialization is through trade. The end.

You don't even need to venture into Ricardian comparative advantage vs. absolute advantage, though that is equally simple. If no trade, then no specialization, hence starvation.

When is tomwoods.com going to post this podcast? I can at least trust Vox to provide an argument worth demolishing.